Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
04/19/2022 03:00 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB251 | |
| HB271 | |
| HB66 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 271 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 66 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 251 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 396 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 66-ELECTIONS, VOTING, BALLOTS
4:18:50 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the final order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 66, "An Act relating to voting, voter
qualifications, and voter registration; relating to poll
watchers; relating to absentee ballots and questioned ballots;
relating to election worker compensation; and providing for an
effective date." [Before the committee was the proposed CS for
HB 66, Version O, labeled 32-LS0322\O, Klein, 3/30/22, adopted
as the working document on 4/12/22.]
4:19:39 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
4:19:56 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS invited questions from committee members.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about the current verification
process for the U.S. citizenship status of voters.
4:21:08 PM
MICHAELA THOMPSON, Administrative Operations Manager, Division
of Elections (DOE), Office of the Lieutenant Governor, explained
that an individual must certify that he/she was a U.S. citizen
during the voter registration process.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN sought to confirm that the "honor system"
was used.
MS. THOMPSON clarified that the individual's signed affidavit
was utilized.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN directed attention to Section 1,
subsection (4), of Version O and asked how to verify whether a
person was not registered to vote in another jurisdiction.
MS. THOMPSON relayed that on the registration form, a voter
could declare whether he/she was registered in another
jurisdiction. If such a declaration was made, DOE would notify
said jurisdiction. Additionally, Alaska was a member of the
Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC), a cross-state
voter registration database.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about enforcement methods for
individuals who maintained voter registration in multiple
states.
MS. THOMPSON said DOE was unable to check records in other
states. She reiterated that if an individual declared that
he/she was registered to vote in another jurisdiction, DOE would
send a notification to that state; however, the division could
not see whether said jurisdiction followed through with the
cancellation.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether there was a benefit to
keeping these requirements in statute if they were based on the
honor system.
4:24:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS TUCK, Alaska State Legislature, prime
sponsor of HB 66, reiterated that during the voter registration
process, an individual was certifying his/her U.S. citizenship
and voter registration status via a signed affidavit under
penalty of perjury for which a misdemeanor offense could be
brought. He opined that the system held people accountable.
4:25:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether any person had been
convicted of that misdemeanor offense.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK deferred to the Department of Law (DOL).
4:25:35 PM
THOMAS FLYNN, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, DOL,
said he was aware of several charges that existed; however, he
was unsure of the details. He offered to follow up with the
requested information.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS redirected the question to Ms. Thompson.
4:26:07 PM
MS. THOMPSON was unsure of the answer.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS inquired about the extent to which voter
registrations were perjured. He shared his understanding that
it was exceedingly rare, which explained the low or unknown
number of prosecutions. He welcomed the follow-up information
from Mr. Flynn regarding criminal referrals or concerning
instances of perjury.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referenced former Representative
Gabrielle LeDoux and the charges brought against her. He
surmised that Alaska did not prosecute people for violating the
law in these circumstances.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked Ms. Thompson to restate the answer to
Representative Eastman's question regarding citizenship.
MS. THOMPSON sought to confirm that Chair Kreiss-Tomkins was
asking what would happen if a non-citizen tried to vote.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS answered yes.
MS. THOMPSON explained that if a non-citizen declared his/her
alien status on a question ballot on election day, the ballot
would be rejected by the question review board.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether there were instances of
perjury pertaining to the declaration of U.S. citizenship on
voter registration forms.
MS. THOMPSON offered to follow up with the requested
information.
4:31:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN shared a personal anecdote about an
individual in the Mat-Su who attempted vote with false
identification.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether the scenario in question was
referred to law enforcement.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN did not believe so.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS remarked, "It strikes me as an omission
with people who have knowledge of this incident." He asked how
DOE would react to such a scenario.
MS. THOMPSON stated that the election workers who witnessed the
fraudulent incident would submit a report to the regional
supervisor who would investigate the matter further. She noted
that workers were not encouraged to make any attempts at
physically stopping an individual in these scenarios for the
purpose of safety; nonetheless, they were trained to document
the incident and contact the regional supervisor.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS inquired about the operating procedure for
a concerned citizen who witnessed such an incident.
MS. THOMPSON said, from a procedural standpoint, the division
would refer the information to the director for investigation if
needed.
4:34:05 PM
MICHAEL MASON, Staff, Representative Chris Tuck, Alaska State
Legislature, noted that, on behalf of Representative Tuck, prime
sponsor, Version O required DOE to establish a toll-free hotline
to receive reports of election offenses or voter misconduct.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN expressed his appreciation for this line
of questioning.
4:35:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked how many times election offenses had
occurred in recent years.
MS. THOMPSON offered to follow up with the requested
information.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR recalled that the number was very small.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS welcomed invited testimony.
4:37:35 PM
HILLARY HALL, Director, Government Affairs, National Vote at
Home Institute (NVAHI), stated that the goal of NVAHI was to
make mail ballots more accessible, equitable, and secure. She
noted that the proposed legislation included many of the
nation's best practices to ensure effective and efficient voting
by mail. She stated that by-mail voting was easy, accessible,
and good for democracy, as it allowed full participation and
offered an equitable solution for voters. In addition to the
permanent mail provision, she highlighted the signature
verification and ballot curing process as outstanding sections
of the legislation. Additionally, she touted the ballot
tracking provision and the pre-processing provision to allow for
timely election results and proper voter notification. She
identified several items in the bill that needed improvement.
She expressed concern that applications could only be sent if a
voter requested one from the division, which put the onus on the
voter to initiate the permanent mail process. She pointed out
that elections were complicated, adding that many voters did not
understand the process. She conveyed that if the bill were to
pass with the provision intact, Get Out the Vote (GOTV) groups
would likely sue the division, as they had in other states.
Finally, she recommended allowing people to pick up and drop off
the mail-in ballots in person from an early voting center during
the 10-day period before an election.
4:43:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN sought to confirm that if an individual
had failed to request a mail ballot before the 10-day cutoff,
he/she could pick up a mail ballot from a voting center. He
questioned whether that ballot could be mailed in.
MS. HALL answered yes, in other states; however, that method
would not be recommended. The point, she said, was to clarify
that an absentee ballot could be picked up in person and filled
out at home.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN expressed confusion as to whether the
absentee ballot in question, once picked up in person and filled
out at home, could be mailed.
MS. HALL clarified her belief that people should be allowed to
pick up an absentee ballot in person within the 10-day period
before the election and return it by mail or in person.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK directed attention to Section 34, which
provided that an absentee ballot must be postmarked on or before
the day of the election; therefore, a voter could be allowed to
pick up an absentee ballot in person, fill it out at home, and
return it within that time period.
4:45:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN sought to confirm that Ms. Hall's
preference was for all registered voters to receive a mail
ballot whether they had requested one or not.
MS. HALL clarified her belief that an application should be
available to all voters, and that the process should not be
predicated on the voter's initiation. In other words, she
opined that applications should be proactively sent out to
voters to allow them to sign up for permanent mail voting.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS pointed out that in past elections, voters
were barraged with absentee by-mail ballot applications by
different groups in an attempt to bank a vote from likely
supporters. He surmised that such actions created confusion
amongst voters or a perception that DOE had sent multiple
applications.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN shared his understanding that unsolicited
ballots often ended up in the garbage, as an affirmative request
had not been made to receive them.
4:48:45 PM
MR. MASON said the scenario shared by Representative Kaufman
highlighted the point of the bill, as there was confusion
amongst voters regarding absentee ballots versus absentee ballot
applications. He relayed that people mistook trash cans full of
absentee ballot applications for ballots that had been thrown
out, which caused alarm and confusion.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN contended that he was aware of the
difference between absentee ballots and absentee ballot
applications. He maintained that unsolicited ballots were
indeed mailed out.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS clarified that the scenario described by
Representative Kaufman pertained to municipal elections. He
asked Ms. Hall to comment on that situation.
MS. HALL highlighted the importance of signature verification to
by-mail ballot elections. She explained that the signature
verification process was used to verify the identity of the
voter and ensured that that the mail ballot was sent in from the
correct person.
4:51:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN remarked:
I would just to beg to differ based on the information
presented to the committee, because we at the state
have never had signature verification for any of our
thousands of mail-in ballots, and I'm told we have an
excellent system with very little problems, so I don't
know why they would need signature verification in
other states if we never needed it here.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK noted that Section 30 placed a limit on the
ability for organizations to send out mail ballot applications
to reduce the bombardment of applications in mailboxes.
Additionally, limitations were placed on pre-filled
applications, which had created much confusion.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS clarified that the language in Version O
placed a prohibition on that kind of activity.
4:53:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK further noted that under Version O, ballot
applications must prominently display the language "Application
only/Not a ballot" on the exterior address side of the envelope.
4:54:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR inquired about the statement made during Ms.
Hall's invited testimony regarding the likelihood of GOTV groups
suing the state.
MS. HALL confirmed that she had seen this kind of policy met
with litigation in other states, specifically regarding the
right for GOTV groups to reach out to voters. To avoid the
possibility of litigation, she suggested that the state could
proactively send out the applications for permanent mail voting.
She believed that many groups would welcome that idea.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked whether other states proactively
communicated with residents about election changes or related
information.
MS. HALL indicated that by providing funding for outreach
programs, the legislature could make that a possibility for DOE.
REPRESENTATIVE TAR questioned whether Ms. Hall was familiar with
the Center for Civic Design and asked how to clearly communicate
with voters to reduce confusion.
MS. HALL answered yes, she was familiar with the Center for
Civic Design. She stated that NVAHI was continuing to identify
systemic barriers to the vote at home process, which included
design and messaging on mailers. She added that the behavioral
group, Ideas42, considered how to make the user interface of a
form easier for diverse populations to participate in ways that
made sense to them.
MR. MASON directed attention to Section 3, which provided that
applicants were allowed to designate their preferred language in
which the division was required to provide ballots and other
election materials.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR wondered whether the bill should be more
prescriptive about ballot design.
MS. HALL said she understood the temptation to be more
prescriptive; however, "getting it right" was an evolving
process that required flexibility and adaptation.
5:01:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN directed attention to Section 2 and asked
how the affidavit signed under penalty of perjury worked. He
wondered whether the applicant's signature effectually acted as
an "oath".
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK answered yes, that was the intent.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about the definition of a "voter
registration agency".
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK deferred to Mr. Klein.
5:03:51 PM
NOAH KLEIN, Attorney, Legislative Legal Services, Legislative
Affairs Agency (LAA), defined "voter registration agency" as an
agency designated under AS 15.07.055, which listed voter
registration agencies.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether someone at the voter
registration agency was putting the voter under oath or whether
signing the form realized the signed affidavit.
MR. MASON said the details would need to be worked out through
the regulation process, as this was new language; however, he
shared his understanding that attesting on the affidavit would
suffice and that no one would be raising their right hand at the
voter registration agency.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS noted that AS 15.07.055 listed the DMV,
DHSS, DCCED, and recruitment offices for the armed forces.
5:06:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN, in response to Representative Eastman's
line of questioning, shared his understanding that PFD
applications similarly involved declaration under penalty of
perjury. He directed attention to Section 43, speculating that
the provision would make it difficult to hold a special election
by mail. He asked Ms. Hall whether Section 43 should be amended
to allow a vote-by-mail special election, such as the special
election held to fill Congressman Don Young's seat.
MS. HALL recommended allowing special elections to be run by
mail to increase participation.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK clarified that currently, the director was
allowed to hold a special election by mail. He pointed out that
Section 43 pertained to small communities where it would not be
feasible to set up a polling place.
5:08:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN said he raised the issue because during a
previous hearing, the director had testified that Section 43
would prohibit the current special election to fill Congressman
Young's seat the U.S. House of Representatives from being held
by mail. He shared his belief that the section in question
needed to be amended.
MR. MASON noted that an amendment was offered for the companion
bill in the Senate, which made significant changes to this
provision.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN requested aa copy of the amendment in
question.
5:09:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK reiterated that AS 15.20.800(a) provided
that the director may conduct an election by mail if held at a
time other than when a general, party primary, or municipal
election was held. He stressed that the aforementioned language
was unchanged by the proposed legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN explained that the issue could be found on
page 20, lines 20-21, which stated that the director may conduct
an election, other than a general, statewide, or federal
election, by mail. He pointed out that the special election to
replace Congressman Don Young's seat was both a statewide and
federal election; therefore, under the language in Version O,
the special election could not be held by mail.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK believed the language in question was a
drafting error. He suggested removing the words "other than a
general, statewide, or federal election," on page 20, lines 20-
21.
5:11:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the language "under penalty
of perjury" fulfilled the intent to implement a liability of
prosecution.
MR. FLYNN explained that falsely signing something under oath
could result in prosecution for perjury or other potential
crimes.
5:13:52 PM
JENNIFER MORRELL, Partner, The Elections Group, and a Risk-
Limiting Audits (RLA) expert, shared her background and work
experience, which included consulting for states that were
implementing RLAs as their official method of auditing. She
invited questions from committee members.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked Ms. Morrell to define RLA.
MS. MORRELL defined RLA as a post-election tabulation audit that
examined a random sample of coded ballots to provide a
statistical level of confidence that the election outcome was
correct. She noted that a number of organizations had
recognized RLAs as a reliable method to validate the integrity
of voting equipment, verify the accuracy of results, and detect
and correct outcome-changing errors in vote tabulation. She
explained that RLAs, by design, were made to escalate if
discrepancies were detected during a traditional audit.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked how RLAs worked methodologically and
how they differed from traditional audits.
MS. MORRELL explained that various methods were used to perform
an RLA. The three particular methods that had been implemented
in other states included: ballot comparison, ballot polling, and
batch comparison. She noted that several states had
experimented with hybrid methods. Additionally, she stated that
the ballot comparison method worked well in states with a
centralized count or by-mail voting system.
5:21:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN considered a scenario in which a
community of 25 registered voters produced 26 ballots. He asked
how an RLA would manage that situation.
MS. MORRELL emphasized that reconciliation was an important part
of the audit process. She explained that if the number of
ballots was incorrect, the audit would treat that as a
discrepancy in favor of the losing candidate.
5:22:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN inquired about risk criticality. He
asked whether risk assessments were calibrated for specific
precincts.
MS. MORREL stated that setting a risk limit was a primary
principle of RLAs. She added that the risk limit was the
maximum possible chance that the audit would fail to detect an
error in the election outcomes. She noted that different states
used different methods to set a risk limit.
5:25:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked whether a standard formula was used to
set the risk limit at 5 percent, for example.
MS. MORRELL indicated that the formula was complicated. She
conveyed that the concept of an RLA was developed by an
academic, adding that software had been created to aid in the
calculation. She reiterated that the risk limit percentage had
been treated as a variable by different states.
MR. MASON pointed out that the section in question had been
written broadly to give discretion to DOE and allow the director
to adopt the necessary regulations to administer the procedures.
He highlighted Section 20, subsection (b), which advised that
the director shall consult with recognized experts, equipment
vendors, and municipal clerks, and shall consider best practices
for conducting RLAs.
5:28:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN recounted a scenario in which 15
different voters attempted to vote from a single mobile home,
which did not appear to be large enough to house 15 individuals.
He asked how an RLA dealt with such a scenario.
MS. MORRELL clarified that RLAs were not used to verify voter
eligibility. Instead, she reiterated that RLAs were designed to
evaluate the operation of the voting equipment.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS shared his understanding that the scenario
posed by Representative Eastman would be delegated to DOE or the
Criminal Division of DOL for further investigation. He asked
Mr. Flynn whether he had any working knowledge of the scenario
in question.
MR. FLYNN offered to follow up on the requested information. He
suggested that Ms. Thompson may be more familiar with the
scenario.
MS. THOMPSON said she was not working in the [Absentee &
Petition Office], DOE, during the period of time when that
situation surfaced.
5:31:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN sought to confirm that an RLA would
verify whether the voting equipment counted the ballots
accurately; however, it would not distinguish between "ballots
that were filled in with a pen versus ballots that were printed
on a printer and then brought to the election place."
MS. HALL pointed out that other barriers were in place to
prevent that. For example, most voting equipment was programmed
to only accept ballots that were programmed on the system or
ballots of the correct weight or timestamp, for example. She
indicated that the system would reject the scheme suggested by
Representative Eastman.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR reiterated that the scenarios posed by
Representative Eastman were situations that should have been
flagged before a vote would ever be counted or audited. She
shared her understanding that the goal of an RLA was to limit
the burden of conducting a hand count for every vote cast in
every precinct across the state.
5:36:29 PM
MR. MASON directed attention to a document [included in the
committee packet], titled "Knowing It's Right, Part One," which
detailed a practical guide to RLAs.
5:37:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether RLAs had been used
successfully with regard to ranked choice voting.
MS. MORRELL confirmed that RLAs had been successfully utilized
for rank choice voting. She noted that in 2020, the democratic
party conducted a presidential preference primary in Alaska
using ranked choice voting for which she had been asked to
perform an RLA. She offered to follow up with the full report.
5:39:43 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 66 was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 271 Work Draft for CS Version I.pdf |
HSTA 4/19/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 271 |
| HB 271 Explanation of Changes from Version B to Version I.pdf |
HSTA 4/19/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 271 |
| HB 271 Written Testimony - Margi Dashevsky 03.29.22.pdf |
HSTA 4/19/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 271 |
| HB 271 Emails of Support to HSTA as of 04.18.22.pdf |
HSTA 4/19/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 271 |
| HB 66 Written Testimony - Secure Democracy 04.13.22.pdf |
HSTA 4/19/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 66 |
| HB 66 Additional Information - A Practical Guide to RLAs by Democracy Fund.pdf |
HSTA 4/19/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 66 |
| HB 66 Additional Information - Secure Democracy Fact Sheet v.O 4.19.22.pdf |
HSTA 4/19/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 66 |
| HB 66 Additional Documents NCSL LegisBrief re RLAs July 2019 04.18.2022.pdf |
HSTA 4/19/2022 3:00:00 PM |
HB 66 |